Except, again, was not the Quran recited by Mohammed?
You have demonstrated nothing that depicts Mohammed as having great moral character. If you truly believe that he is a great role model, demonstrate that he is. Otherwise there is no basis for thinking that he is.[/QUOTE]
Response: Yet your inability to show any flaw in his character demonstrates otherwise.
Except, again, was not the Quran recited by Mohammed?
You have demonstrated nothing that depicts Mohammed as having great moral character. If you truly believe that he is a great role model, demonstrate that he is. Otherwise there is no basis for thinking that he is.
Response: Yet your inability to show any flaw in his character demonstrates otherwise.
Both biology and psychology demonstrate this to be true. Your argument holds no water.
Response: And we still see no evidence from any science saying so, thus refuting yourself as usual.[/QUOTE]
*********************************************
Even though I know I shouldn't, I'm going to jump in here.
So by your logic, if you can't prove someone is a bad person, he is not only a morally good/neutral person, but a morally great person?
On the basis of him being a human being and what he has done for the Middle East (the good things, not the terrorists), I can already accept him as a pretty decent guy. I don't know much about Islam as a religion, but correct me if I'm wrong, he's a Jesus-like figure who preached morals like being good to your neighbors and such.
I can't, however, accept him as a morally great person because I never lived life through his eyes. I think that's also the key to the puzzle of the 9 year old wife.
Forget biology, psychology, etc. How would you feel in her shoes? Marrying a much older, stranger that you don't even know? Sure, by the standards of the time this was fairly common, but I still don't believe for an instant that the women enjoyed it back then more than they do now (which they don't enjoy at all, if I didn't make that clear).
Yes, I realize I'm making a blanket statement and while I'm sure there are some women out there who like older men that they don't know, I'm pretty certain most of them don't. However, we cannot step into Aisha's mind to really understand how she felt. Therefore, neither of us can really make a statement about the marriage from the standpoint of perspective alone.
However, I can make my argument a little bit stronger with the use of logical reasoning. Pulling up charts and research is all good but I'm sure you're immune to that sort of thing by now.
Think about it this way, do you view life the exact same way you did when you were 9 years old? I certainly don't. I've changed a lot over the years. I don't eat the same things I used to. I don't live where I used to. I don't believe the same things I used to. Why have I changed? Experience, of course. Experience that I didn't have as a 9 year old.
Let's take a look at divorce as an example. People grow apart. They get older and realize that they don't love the same person the same way they did before. That's why a lot of young marriages fall apart. The spouses simply didn't have the experience to understand what they truly wanted.
There's a lot of debate over the proper age of consent. But no one can make a blanket statement and say something like "everyone is mature enough to get married at the age of 18." That's simply not true. Some people mature early, some people fast. However, what we can agree on, is that a 9 year old should have more life experience before deciding. It's not backed up by scientific evidence that I have on hand (although I'm sure it's out there). It's just common sense. Damn if I had the experience to decide how my life would turn out at the age of 9. I wouldn't take kindly to anyone who would force that decision on me either, whether I wanted to or not. Sure I might like the arrangement initially, but I'd probably feel terrible a few years down the line. There's very little real communication between 9 year olds and old dudes.
Anyways, the point of that whole spiel was to illustrate the point that not only do we not understand the perspective of Aisha because we don't have information, the logical evidence is stacked against her being wholly happy in the marriage and Mohammed making a morally sound decision by taking even a willing 9 year old into one.
Which brings us back to Mohammed's morality. You're trying to prove that he's not just a good guy, but a truly excellent example of humanity's finest human beings. That's a really, really tall order. Saying he didn't beat his wife doesn't count as evidence towards your argument. I don't know where you come from, but even in the most backwoods areas, people understand that beating their spouses is wrong. It's just that in those areas, people do it anyways.
My advice to you is to give up your quest of preaching that Mohammed is #1 on top of the world Superman. I view him as a pretty good guy who had his flaws, and I'm pretty sure most people who aren't complete idiots do as well. If that's your goal, then it's already been achieved. What are you arguing for?
Response: rather, it is your rebuttal that is invalid. For the same source that says she was 9 is based on the same authority that she was loved and treated kindly. A source cannot be reliable and unreliable at the same time. So to accept one means to accept the other.
In fact, most historians and archaeologists have to deal with sources of questionable authenticity all the time. For example, Herodotus described the war between the Greek city-states and Persia, but he also cited the Olympian gods as agents meddling in human affairs. Or, more generally, ancient sources might under-report their own casualties and over-report the enemy casualties. That's why historians and archaeologists have to collect many sources and (hopefully) physical evidence to corroborate the stories.
Response: You are comparing a statement of judgment with a statement of an actual act or occurance. So clearly, your analogy is severely flawed, as the statements in the hadiths are statements of two occurances.
Surely you realize that "he was married" is a fairly objective statement and "he was kind to his wife" is a value judgment on behavior...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Response: I fully reject that she was mature, and consider the sources that claims her mature as false. I ask that you provide additional sources to show that she was indeed mature, and why she was mature. IE What actions did she make to indicate her maturity.
Response: Which is not a quote of me saying that Muhammad's marriage is acceptable because Muhammad says so, thus proving my point.
It is EXACTLY that.
You are arguing that Mohammed's marriage is acceptable because the Quran says it is.
The Quran was, allegedly, dictated by Mohammed.
Therefore, your sole justification for Mohammed's marriage being acceptable is because Mohammed said his marriage was acceptable.
Response: Yet your inability to show any flaw in his character demonstrates otherwise.
I don't have to demonstrate any flaw in anyone's character to say that no argument has been made for his being a positive role model, because you, by your own admission, have not done so. You've merely repeated over and over again that he is one, without justifying it.
Response: And we still see no evidence from any science saying so, thus refuting yourself as usual.
How's about we start with the definitions of the terms "puberty," "adolescence," and "sexual maturity"? You have no leg to stand on when contradicting biology.
After a lenghty read I can say that the argument about how him being morally right because he was not morally false is invalid because there is no proof. And the flipside is also invalid for the same reason. Once credible evidence is posed (the Quran is not suitable for this) nothing can be said without question
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: RUGScapeshift[RUG...Occasionally with goyfs RUGTarmotwinRUG(RIP)
Legacy: UWxuwr miracles and stonebladeUWx
Commander: UWRShu Yun/Ruhan SmashUWR
Even though I know I shouldn't, I'm going to jump in here.
So by your logic, if you can't prove someone is a bad person, he is not only a morally good/neutral person, but a morally great person?
On the basis of him being a human being and what he has done for the Middle East (the good things, not the terrorists), I can already accept him as a pretty decent guy. I don't know much about Islam as a religion, but correct me if I'm wrong, he's a Jesus-like figure who preached morals like being good to your neighbors and such.
I can't, however, accept him as a morally great person because I never lived life through his eyes. I think that's also the key to the puzzle of the 9 year old wife.
Forget biology, psychology, etc. How would you feel in her shoes? Marrying a much older, stranger that you don't even know? Sure, by the standards of the time this was fairly common, but I still don't believe for an instant that the women enjoyed it back then more than they do now (which they don't enjoy at all, if I didn't make that clear).
Yes, I realize I'm making a blanket statement and while I'm sure there are some women out there who like older men that they don't know, I'm pretty certain most of them don't. However, we cannot step into Aisha's mind to really understand how she felt. Therefore, neither of us can really make a statement about the marriage from the standpoint of perspective alone.
However, I can make my argument a little bit stronger with the use of logical reasoning. Pulling up charts and research is all good but I'm sure you're immune to that sort of thing by now.
Think about it this way, do you view life the exact same way you did when you were 9 years old? I certainly don't. I've changed a lot over the years. I don't eat the same things I used to. I don't live where I used to. I don't believe the same things I used to. Why have I changed? Experience, of course. Experience that I didn't have as a 9 year old.
Let's take a look at divorce as an example. People grow apart. They get older and realize that they don't love the same person the same way they did before. That's why a lot of young marriages fall apart. The spouses simply didn't have the experience to understand what they truly wanted.
There's a lot of debate over the proper age of consent. But no one can make a blanket statement and say something like "everyone is mature enough to get married at the age of 18." That's simply not true. Some people mature early, some people fast. However, what we can agree on, is that a 9 year old should have more life experience before deciding. It's not backed up by scientific evidence that I have on hand (although I'm sure it's out there). It's just common sense. Damn if I had the experience to decide how my life would turn out at the age of 9. I wouldn't take kindly to anyone who would force that decision on me either, whether I wanted to or not. Sure I might like the arrangement initially, but I'd probably feel terrible a few years down the line. There's very little real communication between 9 year olds and old dudes.
Anyways, the point of that whole spiel was to illustrate the point that not only do we not understand the perspective of Aisha because we don't have information, the logical evidence is stacked against her being wholly happy in the marriage and Mohammed making a morally sound decision by taking even a willing 9 year old into one.
Which brings us back to Mohammed's morality. You're trying to prove that he's not just a good guy, but a truly excellent example of humanity's finest human beings. That's a really, really tall order. Saying he didn't beat his wife doesn't count as evidence towards your argument. I don't know where you come from, but even in the most backwoods areas, people understand that beating their spouses is wrong. It's just that in those areas, people do it anyways.
My advice to you is to give up your quest of preaching that Mohammed is #1 on top of the world Superman. I view him as a pretty good guy who had his flaws, and I'm pretty sure most people who aren't complete idiots do as well. If that's your goal, then it's already been achieved. What are you arguing for?
Response: There is nothing in the Qur'an or sunnah that says that Aisha was ever harmed in her marriage and that she was loved and treated kindly by Muhammad. Thus all logical evidence shows that she was very happy in her marriage, which is a reflection of great character by Muhammad.
In fact, most historians and archaeologists have to deal with sources of questionable authenticity all the time. For example, Herodotus described the war between the Greek city-states and Persia, but he also cited the Olympian gods as agents meddling in human affairs. Or, more generally, ancient sources might under-report their own casualties and over-report the enemy casualties. That's why historians and archaeologists have to collect many sources and (hopefully) physical evidence to corroborate the stories.
Response: True, but a source still cannot be reliable and unreliable at the same time.
Response: I fully reject that she was mature, and consider the sources that claims her mature as false. I ask that you provide additional sources to show that she was indeed mature, and why she was mature. IE What actions did she make to indicate her maturity.
Response: Then you must also reject that she was married and was 9 years old at the time, since it derives from the same sources you reject, which makes such a dialogue pointless, as you reject sources with no logical reasoning.
You are arguing that Mohammed's marriage is acceptable because the Quran says it is.
,
The Quran was, allegedly, dictated by Mohammed.
Therefore, your sole justification for Mohammed's marriage being acceptable is because Mohammed said his marriage was acceptable.
Response: Yet we still see you fail to quote any post of mine saying that Muhammad's marriage is acceptable because the Qur'an says so, thus debunking yourself as usual.
I don't have to demonstrate any flaw in anyone's character to say that no argument has been made for his being a positive role model, because you, by your own admission, have not done so. You've merely repeated over and over again that he is one, without justifying it.
Response: Nor do I have to justify it, as it is not the topic. The topic is whether the Qur'an or Sunnah shows Muhammad's character as negative. You've shown nothing, thus refuting your own logic.
How's about we start with the definitions of the terms "puberty," "adolescence," and "sexual maturity"? You have no leg to stand on when contradicting biology.
Response: Yet your continuous failure to provide any scientific statement to back your claim shows otherwise.
Special pleading. What are the differences between statements of judgement and of occurrences that break the analogy? Hint: there aren't any. Even if there were, Blinking Spirit made more than one comparison; in no way is "Caesar fought for the good of the people" more of a judgement than "Muhammad treated his bride with love and kindness."
Response: Clutching at straws: There is a big difference. The statements regarding Aisha comes from "Aisha", thus it has more credibility as to how Aisha was treated. So if Aisha is reliable in reporting one statement, judgment or not, then she cannot also be unreliable reporting another. A source cannot be reliable and unreliable at the same time.
Whereas your example statements come from "you", not Caesar or "the people". They do not come from the same source or any credible source, which would be "the people" Your analogy fails.
More special pleading. Whether or not anyone stated anything about books being white and black is not relevant. The comparison was to show that, in the same way that one text can be, in different areas, both black and white - two qualities that might seem mutually exclusive - a text can be reliable in one area and unreliable in the next.
Response: More clutching at straws: The question was never whether two different things can be opposites, such as black or white, but that one thing cannot be two different things, yet still defined as one. Text can be black in one area and white in the other, but text that are both black and white cannot be called, "just black" or "just white", just as something unreliable cannot be reliable at the same time.
More special pleading. Whether or not anyone stated anything about books being white and black is not relevant. The comparison was to show that, in the same way that one text can be, in different areas, both black and white - two qualities that might seem mutually exclusive - a text can be reliable in one area and unreliable in the next.
Response: More clutching at straws: The question was never whether two different things can be opposites, such as black or white, but that one thing cannot be two different things, yet still defined as one. Text can be black in one area and white in the other, but text that are both black and white cannot be called, "just black" or "just white", just as something unreliable cannot be reliable at the same time.
Your username is Al-Fatihah.
I am Thor, God of Thunder.
Am I a reliable or unreliable source?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Of course I can. You have stated that the marriage was acceptable by the Quran. Was not the Quran recited by Mohammed?[/QUOTE]
Response: Which is not a quote of me saying that Muhammad's marriage is acceptable because Muhammad says so, thus proving my point.
Except, again, was not the Quran recited by Mohammed?
You have demonstrated nothing that depicts Mohammed as having great moral character. If you truly believe that he is a great role model, demonstrate that he is. Otherwise there is no basis for thinking that he is.[/QUOTE]
Response: Yet your inability to show any flaw in his character demonstrates otherwise.
Both biology and psychology demonstrate this to be true. Your argument holds no water.[/QUOTE]
Response: And we still see no evidence from any science saying so, thus refuting yourself as usual.
Response: Which is not a quote of me saying that Muhammad's marriage is acceptable because Muhammad says so, thus proving my point.
Response: Yet your inability to show any flaw in his character demonstrates otherwise.
Response: And we still see no evidence from any science saying so, thus refuting yourself as usual.[/QUOTE]
*********************************************
Even though I know I shouldn't, I'm going to jump in here.
So by your logic, if you can't prove someone is a bad person, he is not only a morally good/neutral person, but a morally great person?
On the basis of him being a human being and what he has done for the Middle East (the good things, not the terrorists), I can already accept him as a pretty decent guy. I don't know much about Islam as a religion, but correct me if I'm wrong, he's a Jesus-like figure who preached morals like being good to your neighbors and such.
I can't, however, accept him as a morally great person because I never lived life through his eyes. I think that's also the key to the puzzle of the 9 year old wife.
Forget biology, psychology, etc. How would you feel in her shoes? Marrying a much older, stranger that you don't even know? Sure, by the standards of the time this was fairly common, but I still don't believe for an instant that the women enjoyed it back then more than they do now (which they don't enjoy at all, if I didn't make that clear).
Yes, I realize I'm making a blanket statement and while I'm sure there are some women out there who like older men that they don't know, I'm pretty certain most of them don't. However, we cannot step into Aisha's mind to really understand how she felt. Therefore, neither of us can really make a statement about the marriage from the standpoint of perspective alone.
However, I can make my argument a little bit stronger with the use of logical reasoning. Pulling up charts and research is all good but I'm sure you're immune to that sort of thing by now.
Think about it this way, do you view life the exact same way you did when you were 9 years old? I certainly don't. I've changed a lot over the years. I don't eat the same things I used to. I don't live where I used to. I don't believe the same things I used to. Why have I changed? Experience, of course. Experience that I didn't have as a 9 year old.
Let's take a look at divorce as an example. People grow apart. They get older and realize that they don't love the same person the same way they did before. That's why a lot of young marriages fall apart. The spouses simply didn't have the experience to understand what they truly wanted.
There's a lot of debate over the proper age of consent. But no one can make a blanket statement and say something like "everyone is mature enough to get married at the age of 18." That's simply not true. Some people mature early, some people fast. However, what we can agree on, is that a 9 year old should have more life experience before deciding. It's not backed up by scientific evidence that I have on hand (although I'm sure it's out there). It's just common sense. Damn if I had the experience to decide how my life would turn out at the age of 9. I wouldn't take kindly to anyone who would force that decision on me either, whether I wanted to or not. Sure I might like the arrangement initially, but I'd probably feel terrible a few years down the line. There's very little real communication between 9 year olds and old dudes.
Anyways, the point of that whole spiel was to illustrate the point that not only do we not understand the perspective of Aisha because we don't have information, the logical evidence is stacked against her being wholly happy in the marriage and Mohammed making a morally sound decision by taking even a willing 9 year old into one.
Which brings us back to Mohammed's morality. You're trying to prove that he's not just a good guy, but a truly excellent example of humanity's finest human beings. That's a really, really tall order. Saying he didn't beat his wife doesn't count as evidence towards your argument. I don't know where you come from, but even in the most backwoods areas, people understand that beating their spouses is wrong. It's just that in those areas, people do it anyways.
My advice to you is to give up your quest of preaching that Mohammed is #1 on top of the world Superman. I view him as a pretty good guy who had his flaws, and I'm pretty sure most people who aren't complete idiots do as well. If that's your goal, then it's already been achieved. What are you arguing for?
In fact, most historians and archaeologists have to deal with sources of questionable authenticity all the time. For example, Herodotus described the war between the Greek city-states and Persia, but he also cited the Olympian gods as agents meddling in human affairs. Or, more generally, ancient sources might under-report their own casualties and over-report the enemy casualties. That's why historians and archaeologists have to collect many sources and (hopefully) physical evidence to corroborate the stories.
Surely you realize that "he was married" is a fairly objective statement and "he was kind to his wife" is a value judgment on behavior...
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
It is EXACTLY that.
You are arguing that Mohammed's marriage is acceptable because the Quran says it is.
The Quran was, allegedly, dictated by Mohammed.
Therefore, your sole justification for Mohammed's marriage being acceptable is because Mohammed said his marriage was acceptable.
I don't have to demonstrate any flaw in anyone's character to say that no argument has been made for his being a positive role model, because you, by your own admission, have not done so. You've merely repeated over and over again that he is one, without justifying it.
How's about we start with the definitions of the terms "puberty," "adolescence," and "sexual maturity"? You have no leg to stand on when contradicting biology.
Modern:
RUGScapeshift[RUG...Occasionally with goyfs
RUGTarmotwinRUG(RIP)
Legacy:
UWxuwr miracles and stonebladeUWx
Commander:
UWRShu Yun/Ruhan SmashUWR
That said, Muhammad marrying a 6? or 9? year old is what did it for me. Everything else is just icing on the cake.
Response: There is nothing in the Qur'an or sunnah that says that Aisha was ever harmed in her marriage and that she was loved and treated kindly by Muhammad. Thus all logical evidence shows that she was very happy in her marriage, which is a reflection of great character by Muhammad.
Response: True, but a source still cannot be reliable and unreliable at the same time.
Response: Treating someone kindly is an actual act or occurance as well.
Response: Then you must also reject that she was married and was 9 years old at the time, since it derives from the same sources you reject, which makes such a dialogue pointless, as you reject sources with no logical reasoning.
Response: Yet we still see you fail to quote any post of mine saying that Muhammad's marriage is acceptable because the Qur'an says so, thus debunking yourself as usual.
Response: Nor do I have to justify it, as it is not the topic. The topic is whether the Qur'an or Sunnah shows Muhammad's character as negative. You've shown nothing, thus refuting your own logic.
Response: Yet your continuous failure to provide any scientific statement to back your claim shows otherwise.
Response: Clutching at straws: There is a big difference. The statements regarding Aisha comes from "Aisha", thus it has more credibility as to how Aisha was treated. So if Aisha is reliable in reporting one statement, judgment or not, then she cannot also be unreliable reporting another. A source cannot be reliable and unreliable at the same time.
Whereas your example statements come from "you", not Caesar or "the people". They do not come from the same source or any credible source, which would be "the people" Your analogy fails.
Response: More clutching at straws: The question was never whether two different things can be opposites, such as black or white, but that one thing cannot be two different things, yet still defined as one. Text can be black in one area and white in the other, but text that are both black and white cannot be called, "just black" or "just white", just as something unreliable cannot be reliable at the same time.
Your username is Al-Fatihah.
I am Thor, God of Thunder.
Am I a reliable or unreliable source?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.